|
| 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West | 
 enlarge | Author: Roger Crowley
Publisher: Hyperion
Category: Book
List Price: $14.95
Buy New: $10.46
You Save: $4.49 (30%)
New (5) Used (8) from $9.98
Avg. Customer Rating:  35 reviews
Sales Rank: 164043
Format: Bargain Price
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 336
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.2 x 0.8
Dewey Decimal Number: 940
ASIN: B0014JOKZW
Publication Date: August 15, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
A complete and compelling account of the fall of Constantinople, the siege that gave rise to today's jihad. When Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, a remarkable era in world history ended. Constantinople, the "city of the world's desire," was a wealthy, imperial, intimidating, and Christian city, influencing world opinion for a thousand years. The fall of Constantinople marked the end of the Byzantium Empire and the end of the medieval era. Thereafter, two worlds would rise -- that of the West and that of the Middle East. 1453 is brought to life by the stories of its two ambitious battling leaders-Mehmed II, sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and Constantine XI, the 57th emperor of Byzantium. It is a vivid, intense tale of courage and cruelty, of technological ingenuity, of endurance and luck. Impeccably researched and told as a real-life adventure, the book explores the issues that led up to and resulted from the fall of Constantinople in a way that is easily grasped and jumps from the pages into the headlines of world news. 1453 is the story of a moment of change that has new relevance today -- a crucial link in the chain of events that besets the modern world.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 30 more reviews...
 Better written P.R. than most. September 19, 2005
225 out of 307 found this review helpful
Living in Istanbul and working as a journalist, as I did for years, and living on Turkey's Mediterranean Coast as I do now I've run across individuals such as Mr. Crowley -- although I've never met him to my knowledge. Europeans -- oddly, particularly Brits -- who are attracted to Turkey and its history, its people and culture and self-generated mythology and who seek to, in some way, identify with it, or at least appoint themselves its expositors to more benighted cultures, such as (fill in home country).
Mr. Crowley's a good writer, let's be clear about that. He does take what could be a dry subject and write in clear, easy prose without condescending to his reader. Thankfully he avoids the novelist's style, which is inappropriate to the subject and which in my estimation rarely adds lucidity or "readability" to military history, he does well to avoid it here. Think William Manchester or Barbara Tuchman for the style.
But he's clearly not a scholar. Not that you have to be to take up a pen to write history, William Shirer wasn't a scholar yet his history of Nazi Germany has not been improved upon. What Mr. Crowley is, however, is an apologist for the Turkish-Islamic cultural myth.
It's clear by about page 20 that Mr. Crowley has no patience for the Byzantines, their religion, culture or empire. He speaks of them with barely-concealed contempt, and writes admiringly, almost fawningly of the Islamic armies which defeated them. At times his lack of objectivity is embarrassing -- he uses the term "martyr" to describe Muslims who die in combat, and he unquestioningly repeats the discredited canards that Balkan and European peasantry preferred Islamic to Christian rule. He adopts only the most superficial and derogatory to the West interpretation of the Crusades, and is clearly unfamiliar with Bernard Lewis, Bat Ye'or or Paul Fregosi's scholarship -- an unforgiveable omission for someone sitting down to write a history of 1453.
At times his almost dewy-eyed admiration for the Islamic armies at the heart of the Turkish Islamic myth overwhelms his good sense -- page 32: "The laws of Islam required mercy to conquered peoples [Right, like the laws of America require adherence to a speed limit]... No attempt was made to convert Christians, who formed the bulk of the population, to Islam..." Page 33: "A levy of Christian youths was taken [by the Islamic sultan] at regular intervals, converted to Islam..."
Later on the same page: "But to Christians watching the process from afar, it evoked rigid horror... the prospect of turning captured Christian children against Christians was fiendish and inhuman. It was to form a powerful ingredient in the myth of the Savage Turk."
I'd say "fiendish" and "inhuman" are pretty accurate adjectives for the practice of forcing slaves to go to war for their captors, yes.
Note that, the "myth" of the savage Turk, which as Mr. Crowley correctly notes was the shorthand for the Islamic forces conquering the historically Christian lands. Again, Mr. Crowley unavails himself of some less "mythological" reasons why Europeans might have considered the Islamic armies savage:
Muslim historian Ibn al-Athir (1160-1233) in his The Complete History, on the Islamic invasion of Spain and France in the eighth and ninth centuries, writes "In 177 [17 April 793] Hisham, [Muslim] prince of Spain, sent a large army... into enemy territory, and which made forays as far as Narbonne and Jaranda [Gerona]... For several months [the army] traversed this land in every direction, raping women, killing warriors, destroying fortresses, burning and pillaging everything..."
Bat Ye'or, in the highly-respected 1996 book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam writes "Sophronius [Bishop of Jerusalem]... bewailed the destruction of churches and monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the [Muslims] who were overrunning the country. In a letter the same year to Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages wrought by the Arabs. Thousands of people perished in 639, victims of the famine and plague that resulted from these destructions."
I could go on and on -- Ye'or reproduces an eyewitness to the Islamic armies conquering the Egyptian Christian town of Nikiou: "They seized the town and slaughtered everyone they met in the street and in the churches - men, women and children, sparing nobody. Then they went to other places, pillaged and killed all the inhabitants they found..."
The pattern was repeated, as Constantinoplians had good reason to fear, when their city was taken in 1453. Steven Runciman, the preeminent historian of the Crusades, reports that Muslim soldiers hewing to the by now well-established pattern "slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn."
All this is carefully airbrushed out of Mr. Crowley's book, in which the final taking of the city is described in the most bloodless yet gloating terms possible, and here he can't even pretend to keep his bias under wraps -- on page 239 he laments that the fall of the city "was just the start of a huge renewal of anti-Islamic sentiment." This is so ludicrous, to blame the victims of military conquest for being "anti" their bloody conquerors, as to beggar honest belief.
In the end the book is useful only insofar as someone is curious about what a pro-Islamic, anti-West non-scholar would daydream what happened in 1453, with noble, benevolent Islamic heroes, some of whom were cruelly martyred by the evil Western Christians opposing their glorious destiny, marching in to succor a city wracked by Christian malfeasance and ignorance... you can write the rest, can't you?
 "There is no prince who has his armies and camps in better order." August 21, 2005
82 out of 101 found this review helpful
When I was a young Infantry officer, I recall a tactical instructor telling us that,"The best defence is only as good as the willingness of an enemy to make the necessary sacrifices to overcome it." I can think of few better examples of this principle than the Ottoman siege of Constantinople. I have read many books about this event and in my opinion "1453" by Roger Crowley is far-and-away the best. The book is chock-full of interesting facts about the siege and where the facts are unclear, Crowley (like Herodotus) gives us the opposing stories and lets us decide. In addition "1453" is a very readable, fast-paced history. It's one of the few history books I've read where I can honestly say I wished it was much longer. It's like an excellent novel but it's all true and a heartbreaking story to boot. I just wish I'd been able to read it before my visit to Istanbul earlier this year. I'd have kept it at my side.
A Pivotal Moment in the History of a Great City October 28, 2005
39 out of 42 found this review helpful
Byzantium. Constantinople. Istanbul. Intellectually, it is easy enough to remember that these three cities are in fact the same, sitting on the Bosphorus, straddling the border between Europe and the East. However, it is difficult to get a visceral feel for the fact that the current city of mosques and minarets was for over a millennia one of the centers of the Christian world. Fortunately, there is a book like 1453 to take us back and let us experience how such a transformation takes place.
In his book, Mr. Crowley takes us back to the year of the title, when Sultan Mehmet II, a man barely out of his teens but who has survived the intrigues that barred his way to the throne, lays siege to Constantinople. Despite the fact that the city has resisted sieges many times before thanks to its natural water defenses and ancient western wall, Mehmet is willing to take the risk. Constantine XI, the aging emperor who guards the city, is weak and his city and empire is only a shadow of its former glory. So, Mehmet gathers his armies and vassals and heads to the walls.
Overall, Mr. Crowley's descriptions of the siege are absorbing. He points out the very important advantages that Mehmet had over previous would-be conquerors: he brings cannon and a navy. The walls of Constantinople were impregnable to a classic mediaeval attack but the arrival of gunpowder to the West and the development of cannon made the walls vulnerable. Plus, no attacker had ever brought a navy to bear on the city before and its very existence cut off the possibility of resupplying the city, making a successful siege a possibility.
But Mehmet's victory was by no means assured and, in fact, he could have easily failed. His guns could only fire a few salvos a day and his navy was basically outclassed had his enemies ever being willing to meet him directly in battle. The lengthening siege made it difficult to manage his vast armies. Plus, the city was defended. Mr. Crowley shows great respect for the defenders of the city, their strategies and valor. As Mehmet's guns brought down sections of the wall, the citizens of Constantinople would sneak out at night and rebuild. Down to the last battle, the people of Constantinople seemed to believe their city could not fall.
Of course, fall it did. Mr. Crowley quickly gives us the final successful push into the city which, be it through luck or valor, went to the Turks in hours once the walls were breached. As Mehmet enters the city we get to see both the good and bad of a city defeated in the Middle Ages, mercy and spoils, revenge and glory. And we get a brief account of the spread of the news through the West and its effect on subsequent history.
All in all, this account of an important moment in the history of the Western world is a great read. It is informative and insightful, managing to build tension and excitement despite the fact that the reader knows the outcome. And Mr. Crowley's fairness to both the Christian defenders and the Turkish conquerors makes it palatable and not strident. There is no doubt that this defeat after 1000 years of successful defense was a tragic time but this fading star of the Christian world rises to become the center of the Muslim world, maintaining its glory for centuries more. This city deserves its story to be told.
 Problematic history January 13, 2006
22 out of 37 found this review helpful
This book is emblematic of popular history writing today on two accounts. First, it tries to examine a classic Muslim-Christian struggle in order to symbolize what the author perceives as todays struggle between Islam and the west. Second, after finding the event to write about and emphasizing its religious overtones, it then tries to show how perfect and merciful Islam is and tries to reveal how racist and brutal the west is. Under the guise of popular history and `revealing' something new about `why fundamentalist Islam objects to the West' it is merely propaganda on the subject, almost fictional. This book fills the same gap.
With this in mind its is not a bad read, not accurate to be sure, colored, deeply biased, but well written. The essence of the subject is the fall of Constantinople, the city which was the center of Eastern Rome and then Eastern Christianity, withering on for far too long before it died, like Turkey became the `Sick man of Europe' surely Byzantium was the `sick man' of the 15th century. The author does a good job of explicating the previous sieges of the great city. However its downfall came because it had allowed the Turkish immigrants, principally the Ottomans to settle on the Western side of the Bosporus, so that the Turkish immigrants came to surround the city, which by this time relied on western European mercenaries(Venetians and Normans) to defend it from the Greek Christian slave soldiers who the Ottomans used against it. Byzantium was the center of Eastern `Greek' Christianity, a rich city more renowned in tales then in reality, a point made in the book. Far from the books view that it was `intolerant' and only the Islamic sacking of it, the Islamic selling of half the cities inhabitants into slavery and colonizing the large Church Hagia Sophia and converting it into a mosque made it `tolerant' the city was in fact very tolerant, full of many cultures and traders from around the world. In fact its tolerance for unfettered immigration led to its destruction. An interesting, almost totally inaccurate and colored read when it comes to religion and the treatment of the Christian minority, however it has a few good points.
Seth J. Frantzman
1453: Conquest of Constantinople -- deserves to be read. January 31, 2006
19 out of 31 found this review helpful
Did Roger Crowley write a great book? Perhaps not. Is it a good book? It definitely is. I certainly enjoyed reading it. What is significant about the year 1453? Well, ask any Turkish school kid. He will tell you. That is the year the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople. The city became a focal point of all that is Turkish after that. But you know the ending, so how can even a good writer sustain the suspense through this 300-page book? Well, Mr. Crowley did that for me. It may have not have been quite as exciting to read as Ken Follett's "Pillars of the Earth," a book that has both mystery and
Information about cathedral construction in the 12-13th centuries. Nevertheless, it was hard to put down 1453, once I started reading it.
As the author notes, "Given the huge significance of 1453 to the history of the Turkish people, it is surprising that there are so few contemporary Ottoman accounts of the capture of the city, no eyewitness narratives, almost no personal reports of the feelings and motivations of the Muslim soldiers...." The reason: "The society was predominately preliterate; transmission of events was largely oral, with no tradition of recording individual stories... so that the Ottoman perspective often has to be constructed by reading between the lines of Christian accounts: 1453 is unusual in being history largely written by the losers." Actually, in those days, even in the west, literacy was almost exclusively the province of churchmen.
Given my enjoyment of this book, I cannot stomach a review like that of "Clubbeaux"? He obviously does not care for his fellow Englishman, for he calls him an "apologist for the Turkish-Islamic cultural myth," whatever that is. He accuses Mr. Crowley of being unfamiliar with Bernard Lewis of Princeton University and his research. Really? Let's see what Professor Lewis says in his 2004 book, "From Babel to Dragomans:"
"Religious ill-will usually outlives religious belief. Western travelers in Turkey, who were the major source of information to the Western world, with few exceptions reinforced these prejudices. Western hostility to the Turk was perpetuated by the enthusiasm of the philhellenes who, in their just admiration for Greece, did less than justice to the Turk ... forgetting the famous words of the Byzantine dignitary Lucas Notaras, `It is better to see in the city the power of the Turkish turban than that of the Latin tiara.' "
After establishing his "credentials" as someone who has lived in Turkey for many years, Clubbeaux accuses Mr. Crowley airbrushing the viciousness of the Ottoman soldier.
"Mobs targeted the merchant communities who lived in the city's main harbour on the shores of the Golden Horn...the old and the infirm were caught and slain. Churches were burned and churchmen were captured and tortured. A hospital run by the Knights Hospitaller was attacked and the sick slaughtered in their beds. A papal legate was seized and killed; his head was cut off and tied to the tail of a dog...Many other westerners were taken prisoner and sold into slavery.
The mob? No, they were not Ottoman soldiers. They were Christians, and these misdeeds were committed two centuries before the Ottomans stepped foot onto Constantinople soil. (Johathan Phillips, "The Fourth Crusade.")
Sultan Mehmet had promised his soldiers three days to plunder the city when they succeeded to conquer it. However, he would not allow them to destroy the city's historic churches and other landmarks. In fact, he stopped further plunder beyond the first afternoon. Actually, all the looting had been done two centuries earlier by the Crusaders. They had taken away nearly everything worthwhile. What they did not steal, they destroyed. Here is an eyewitness account by Nicholas Mesarites of crusader greed and violence: "They slaughtered the new-born, killed prudent matrons, stripped elder women...They tortured the monks, they hit them with their fists and kicked their bellies, thrashing and rending their reverend bodies with whips. Mortal blood was spilled on the holy altars ... many were dragged like sheep and beheaded, and on the holy tombs, the wretched slew the innocent."
Precious metals were stripped from public buildings and monuments. The crusaders even broke open imperial Byzantine tombs and stole valuables. As Niketas searingly observed: "They displayed complete indifference and irreverence to all."
When he entered St. Sophia after dismounting before its front door, Sultan Mehmet caught sight of a soldier who was smashing away at the marble pavement. Infuriated by this visible defiance of his orders to preserve the buildings, Mehmet had him dragged outside by the feet.
Contrast that with this: "The Hagia Sophia, Constantinople's greatest, most glorious building and the spiritual heart of the Byzantine Empire, was ravaged and defiled. Within hours, centuries of precious offerings were gathered up. It was not just movable objects that were taken, for the fabric of the Hagia Sophia itself was attacked. For example, as the crusaders stripped the silver overlay from the pulpit gates, the carefully deployed workmanship of years was destroyed. So huge was the haul that the holy thieves had to bring pack animals into the building. The excrement of mules and asses fouled the smooth marble floors of the house of God; men and beasts slipped and fell as they struggled to move their burdens away. The pollution of the great church was absolute." (The Fourth Crusade).
Religion saturated the medieval period in a way that is hard for us to comprehend today. So, does 1453 deliver what its subtitle promises? Frankly, it does not. For a more thorough examination of "The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West," you have to look elsewhere -- perhaps Bernard Lewis's recent book on "What Went Wrong?" Nevertheless, Crowley's 1453 is well written, colorful and exciting to read. If, in the process, you learn a few things about Islam and Christianity, consider that just a bonus.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
